81 replies to this topic

[Robert Giacometti]

Did anyone see the article in the paper on Friday regarding Aerojet selling its land ( I thought it was Hillsborough) to the Developers who own land S50.

 

Don't forget Folsom has a legal agreement to provide water to that development as well, where is that water going to come from for those nearly 5000 homes?  Its going to come from N50?

[camay2327]

The article pretty much validates that the City violated Measure W regarding the water issue.

 

4 of these council members need to be RECALLED! Some of you are giving them far too much credit, in that they simply are making mistakes! They know exactly what they are doing and think because of the rigged election process in Folsom, that keeps them elected,  they are invincible.

 

Agree....

[kcrides99]

Folsom ej- I don't take the libertarian approach that everyone should be able to do what they want with their land. The effects on the rest of us (traffic, air pollution, etc) are equally important as their property rights.

I am fine with them usin the property as ranch land forever, however, creating sprawl and a new town, is not their right.

Robert- thanks for the history lesson. As a newer (7years) resident, it is much appreciated. There has to be a way to stop the march southward.

Any thoughts?

[knittychick]

I haven't read each post on this thread, so it may have already been referenced, but if not check out some 2004 posts for additional history on South of 50 expansion:

 

http://www.tomatopag...pic=1452&page=3

[Rich_T]

 

Only 200 people attended, a very small percentage of Folsom's population.  So, while there may be a vocal majority here on myfolsom against what's happening S50 or even south S50, it doesn't seem to translate into community involvement.

 

Only 200 attended because everyone else knew it was a ruse.  The only options were variations of the City's plans for developing S50.  The option "no development", or even "little development", was not on the table.  The City decided on development, and how much development, without residents ever having a chance to say no thanks.

[Robert Giacometti]

Rich's is correct! Some of those 200 have connections to the City and were TOLD they had to go and some were staff who live in Folsom who were Told to go. Then you had some commissioners  who were encouraged to go. After the 1st meeting when most of the Citizens who attended,  realized they weren't really go to get an opportunity to choose an option they wanted, many stopped going.

 

Afterall, who really wants to go and waste their time being part of a farce!

[ducky]

 

Only 200 attended because everyone else knew it was a ruse.  The only options were variations of the City's plans for developing S50.  The option "no development", or even "little development", was not on the table.  The City decided on development, and how much development, without residents ever having a chance to say no thanks.

 

Rich T, I'm sure a lot of that is true.    The link below says the focus of residents was more parks and open space and walkable communities.

 

www.folsom.ca.us/visioning/pdf/EnVision.pdf.

 

There was also this article:

 

www.folsomtelegraph.com/article/voters-deserve-measure-w-accountability

[kcrides99]

Supermom - The thing you have to keep in mind as the next expansion does NOT require voter approval... All it needs is 3 out of 5 votes from the Council and a LAFCO vote.
 
Given the lack of accountability of the council and their desire for more development, don't kid yourself that this is not a likely scenario.
 
The only reason it went to a vote previously is due to the Measure W effort and the Council's efforts to circumvent Measure W.

If the land was not already owned by a developer I would not be harping on this, but from what I can tell those of you who were around when this all went down feel burned, as a newer resident I don't want to see history repeat itself.

[ducky]

Supermom - The thing you have to keep in mind as the next expansion does NOT require voter approval... All it needs is 3 out of 5 votes from the Council and a LAFCO vote.
 
Given the lack of accountability of the council and their desire for more development, don't kid yourself that this is not a likely scenario.
 
The only reason it went to a vote previously is due to the Measure W effort and the Council's efforts to circumvent Measure W.

If the land was not already owned by a developer I would not be harping on this, but from what I can tell those of you who were around when this all went down feel burned, as a newer resident I don't want to see history repeat itself.

 

Sorry to nitpick, but Measure T was the grassroots measure and Measure W was the city council's measure.  And I don't relay what I remember to discourage, but to try and give you some background so you can be realistic.   

 

And I agree with you about the private property rights.  When the land speculators bought it, it was ranch land.  If they wanted to keep running cows until... well, the cows come home, so to speak, I think a lot of people would be fine with that.  It's when all this rezoning on annexation happens that things tip the scales and affect us all as far as services, air pollution, traffic, water supply, etc.

I mean, did I really rip my lawn out and scale down my veggie garden so someone could have a great view from an $800,000 home on a hill?  To heck with that.  

[TruthSeeker]

Can we impeach these turds on the city council that are shafting the city in favor of their developer buddies??

[Rich_T]

 

Sorry to nitpick, but Measure T was the grassroots measure and Measure W was the city council's measure.  And I don't relay what I remember to discourage, but to try and give you some background so you can be realistic.   

 

And I agree with you about the private property rights.  When the land speculators bought it, it was ranch land.  If they wanted to keep running cows until... well, the cows come home, so to speak, I think a lot of people would be fine with that.  It's when all this rezoning on annexation happens that things tip the scales and affect us all as far as services, air pollution, traffic, water supply, etc.

I mean, did I really rip my lawn out and scale down my veggie garden so someone could have a great view from an $800,000 home on a hill?  To heck with that.  

 

That's right.

 

The subtle move was to quietly equate annexation with rezoning.  When people voted on Measure W, it was pitched as a way for "us" to control what would happen to the land (vs. bad development from phantom others who would act if we didn't stave them off by annexing the land).  But then, annexation done, the ranch land was rezoned for development as a matter of course, without any resident input, as though that was part of the deal all along.  Anyone who was paying attention saw right through the ruse, but was impotent to do anything about it.  That's why there is a lot of resentment.

[Deb aka Resume Lady]

Yes, I care. I know a lot of people who care and are concerned and who feel betrayed. The question is whether there is anything that can really be done about it now. If anyone has a suggestion and/or can spearhead an effort -- let the rest of us know what we can do.

[tony]

 

Rich T, I'm sure a lot of that is true.    The link below says the focus of residents was more parks and open space and walkable communities.

 

www.folsom.ca.us/visioning/pdf/EnVision.pdf.

 

There was also this article:

 

www.folsomtelegraph.com/article/voters-deserve-measure-w-accountability

 

 The second sentence in Miklos' article pretty much says it all: "The measure passed with a resounding 69 percent vote, sending a clear message that residents agree local control of this land is vital."

 

Nothing in the measure said anything about a choice to have local control. It passed resoundingly only because it sounded like it would control what the locals did with the land, and more importantly, because it provided no alternative.

[kcrides99]

I REALLY think that the Current project is no longer stoppable. If one wanted to they could be a thorn in the City's side with CEQA law suits, but ultimately they would prevail in court.

 

I would like to get ahead of the next Phase, which is why I brought this topic up... not to rub salt in the wound, but to stop the further march south.... Anyone who has ideas on the best method to do so, please let me know.

[Rich_T]

 

 The second sentence in Miklos' article pretty much says it all: "The measure passed with a resounding 69 percent vote, sending a clear message that residents agree local control of this land is vital."

 

Nothing in the measure said anything about a choice to have local control. It passed resoundingly only because it sounded like it would control what the locals did with the land, and more importantly, because it provided no alternative.

 

The residents agreed about having local control, but they thought it meant that they would have a say in what happened.  Oops.